**WARNING** This blog is not for children or the faint of heart! This is a speak free forum. I believe in speaking my mind and all comments are welcome.
But if you post BULLSHIT Anonymously...It will get deleted!!

Thursday, December 17, 2009

I have a question and I hope one of my more knowledgeable readers can perhaps explain this to me.If you have a business whatever it may be, the standard wisdom for all types is take your profits and reinvest them back into your inventory.Buy more product to sell, or invest in new equipment for said purpose. Do not take those profits and use them for anything other than increasing business.This is standard business 101, taught in any good class from Harvard to community college.All in agreement so far?.Here's my quandary.A business here in AZ. [Which by all involved vehemently deny it is one] but let's go with our all knowing governments version and say it is. I personally don't agree with that...but let's for the sake of this argument say it's true.According to the same government it is a "criminal organization" that deals in nefarious purposes.Now this said organization took some of it's profits and bought a truckload of toys to give to children.When they arrived to deliver the toys...They were denied access to giving the toys away.????? WTF?Well it seems the local law enforcement in it's wisdom decided to tell the charity 'Don't accept these toys..they are bought with criminal profits'.Who loses out in this scenario?The innocent children lose out on Christmas.The 'Bad guys' will correctly now decide that since spending money on charity is a waste if time, put it back in inventory.The 'product' they sell will not be diminished one fucking Iota by this denial.They are not gonna close up shop and go away because....[Awww, they won't let us give stuff away]The 'customers' don't buy from them because 'hey..they help kids'. They could give a shit less one way or the other.OK...So far the kids lost...the 'criminals' kept more of their profits to buy more product and equipment..[being criminals...that would naturally mean more guns and such].So who came out ahead here?Law enforcement?Most see it as making innocents pay for the wages of crime. The organization they are fighting actually gains in strength because they now have more money to continue their 'nefarious efforts' and actually close ranks among themselves , becoming a tighter group.The LEO's now face a better equipped army against them, the public perception of them is diminished because they just made innocent children who are already down on their luck pay the price.These kids will not remember why....Only that a 'Cop' prevented Christmas.And will most likely in the future look on 'Cops' as assholes.Showing LESS respect for the law,,not more.So my question is......Just who the hell came out ahead in this scenario?